Top U.S. climate scientists praise Gore film for accuracy

[Richard Tafoya]

AP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie _ replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets _ mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

[LesterX]

Obviously a bunch of damn socialists, every last one of 'em...

[Regis Philbin]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909


Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE

June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

[Java]

Just some comments for whatever they're worth:

Anyone who knows anything about BTU's in thier context to how many it takes to melt 32 degree ice into 32 degree water, verses how many degrees already melted water can be heated with the same number of BTU's will know the sobering truth.

...and when the stable's solid matter begins to strike the windmill sails we'll know who was telling the truth but it will have already been too late.

[Richard Tafoya]

More anti-science blathering from James Inhofe (he issued the press release).

A little background on his crusade against the environment: He's Congress' second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from the petroleum industry.

He opposes the existence of both the EPA ("a Gestapo agency") and the Red Cross ("bleeding hearts"). He's a real piece of work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe

Inhofe on the Environment

Inhofe's views are hostile to the claims of environmentalists. In 2003, he called "catastrophic global warming" a "hoax" and stated that "natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change" - an assertion allegedly supported by more than 17,000 scientists who are signatories to the Oregon Petition. Inhofe also states that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century" and claimed that his conclusion was supported by the "painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." [5].

Inhofe, claiming uncertainties related to climate science and the adverse impact that mandatory emissions reductions would have on the U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme. "Global warming is still considered to be a theory and has not come close to being sufficiently proven," he said.

Inhofe has similarly criticised predictions of ozone depletion, particularly in relation to the Arctic [6].

In the 2002 election cycle oil and gas companies contributed more money to Inhofe's campaign than any other congressman except Texas senator John Cornyn [7]. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars [8].

More here: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7603